They have a magnificent team. These people are always kind and willing to listen to your concerns or issues. Better yet, your assignment is always ready before the time, they usually send you a draft to double-check before they finalize your paper.
Case Activity 5: Basic Case Problems
Analyze the following Business Case Problems and answer questions pertaining to each Case Problem.
Use the basic steps in legal reasoning form “IRAC method” Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion along with the Facts for each case.
Paper should be in APA Format along with cite/reference page. No more than 3 pages Non Plagiarism paper.
Please see below the cases and use the “IRAC” method along with Facts for each case.
Case Problem 18-5: Condition Precedent
Case: [Mike Building & Contracting, Inc. v. Just Homes, LLC, 27 Misc.3d 833, 901 N.Y.S.2d 458(2010)]
Question: Which of the two parties involved breached the contract?
Case Problem 19-4: Liquidated Damages and Penalties
Case: [Planned Pethood Plus, Inc. v. KeyCorp, Inc., 228 P.3d 262 (Colo.App. 2010)]
Question: Was the loan’s prepayment charge reasonable, and should it have been enforced? Why or Why not?
Case Problem 20-3: Spotlight on Goods and Services – The Statue of Frauds.
Case: [Fallsview Glatt Kosher Caterers, Inc. v. Rosenfield, 794 N.Y.S.2d 790 (N.Y.Super. 2005)]
Question: Rosenfield claimed that the contract was unenforceable because it was not in writing and violated the UCC,s Statue of Frauds. Is the contract valid? Explain.
Case Problem 22-5: Breach and Damages
Case: [DeRosier v. Utility Systems of America, Inc., 780 N.W.2d 1(Minn.App. 2010)]
Question: Because Utility charged nothing for the fill, was there a breach of contract? If so, would the damages be greater than $9,500? Could consequential damages be justified?
Case Problem 23-4: Implied Warranties
Case: [Rothing v. Kallestad, 337 Mont. 193, 159 P.3.222 (2007)]
Question: Kallestad asked the court dismiss this claim on the ground that, if botulism had been present, it had been in no way foreseeable. Should the court grant this re quest? Why or Why not?
Case Problem 33-5: Liability Based on Actual or Apparent Authority.
Case: [Summerall Electric Co. v. Church of God at Southaven, 25 So.3d 1090 (App.Miss.2010)]
Question: The subcontractors sued the church, contending that it was liable for the payments because NCS was its agent on the basis of either actual or apparent authority. Was NCS an agent for the church, thereby making the church liable to the subcontractors? Explain
Delivering a high-quality product at a reasonable price is not enough anymore.
That’s why we have developed 5 beneficial guarantees that will make your experience with our service enjoyable, easy, and safe.
You have to be 100% sure of the quality of your product to give a money-back guarantee. This describes us perfectly. Make sure that this guarantee is totally transparent.Read more
Each paper is composed from scratch, according to your instructions. It is then checked by our plagiarism-detection software. There is no gap where plagiarism could squeeze in.Read more
Thanks to our free revisions, there is no way for you to be unsatisfied. We will work on your paper until you are completely happy with the result.Read more
Your email is safe, as we store it according to international data protection rules. Your bank details are secure, as we use only reliable payment systems.Read more
By sending us your money, you buy the service we provide. Check out our terms and conditions if you prefer business talks to be laid out in official language.Read more